. 2017 Jan 24;18(2):9–14. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12038

Table 2.

Dosimetric comparison (OAR sparing) of 30 patients that were planned by: PRO using the manual objectives as in the clinical plans (clinical); PO using the RapidPlan‐generated objectives (PO); and PRO using the RapidPlan‐generated objectives (PRO). Dose unit (Gy)

		Mean	SD	95% Confidence interval		P
		Mean	SD	Lower	Upper	P
D_{50%_FH}	Clinical	15.10	2.28	14.25	15.95	<0.01
	PO	10.16	2.65	9.18	11.15	0.06
	PRO	10.43	2.95	9.33	11.53
D_{mean_FH}	Clinical	16.27	2.10	15.49	17.05	<0.01
	PO	12.31	1.71	11.67	12.95	<0.01
	PRO	12.56	1.87	11.86	13.25
D_{50%_UB}	Clinical	28.05	2.60	27.08	29.02	<0.01^a
	PO	19.18	1.96	18.45	19.91	<0.01
	PRO	20.23	2.05	19.47	21.00
D_{mean_UB}	Clinical	29.21	2.10	28.42	29.99	<0.01
	PO	22.35	2.02	21.59	23.10	<0.01
	PRO	23.12	2.09	22.34	23.90
V_107%	Clinical	0.04	0.11	0.00	0.08	0.01^a
	PO	Not observed				0.32^a
	PRO	0.01	0.05	‐0.01	0.03

Wilcoxon signed‐rank test (abnormal distribution); otherwise paired samples t‐test (normal distribution).

SD, standard deviation; D_50%, dose to the 50% volume of the structure; D_mean, mean dose; FH, femoral head, UB, urinary bladder, and V_107%, volume receiving over 107% of the prescribed dose.